Document qdDrgyKERgQQRk9JXXaOO8N8K

^fi*'N ^ THE ASSOCIATED ETHYL COMPANY LIMITED Dleqr. Office: THE ADE1/PHI, LOYDOA, W.C. 2 jfadtrss all communications untilJurther notice to.-- iS: lL(rectors: J.v/. 80YLE O. B. AUG. KESSLER CNETHERLANDS) H.3.HEATH EVES R.W.SELLERS N. A. GASS A. J . SINGLETON W. N.. GRUBB (U.S.A) E. E.SOUBRY L-N. HAMILTON (U.S.A> E.W.WEBB (U.S.A) T.R.A.BEVAN, MANAGING DIRECTOR Lo n d o n , w .c .s Telephqnei Temple Bar 5225 (4 lines) Inland Telegrams; Ethylport, Estrand, London N/e. OUR REF. HF/MB. YOUR REF. 21st August, 1940. Dp . H.A. Kehoe, Dept, of Physiology, College of Medicine, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio, U.3.A. Dear Dr. Kehoe, Tank Cleaning. I have just completed reading with very great interest your monumental report on the Investigations carried out on the lead hazard from tanks which have contained Ethyl gasoline. There is one point which is not quite clear to me, and, as it assumes the very greatest importance, I am writing to you to see if you will be so kind as to elucidate the point for me. It concerns the incidence of organic lead found in the sludge in the various categories of tanks. On Pag 26 and in Table 20 it is reported that the mean value for organic lead for a total of 504 results gives a mean of 0.042, fros which it is -- deduced that the margin of safety between the recorded mean value and the known lethal concentration is scant. However, the recorded means for the various different aetegories of tanks given in Table 20 would seem to lie between 0.01S and 0,018, this general level being Somewhat over one-third of the quoted mean for all results of 0.042 and being about one-sixth of the value 0,010 which is indicated as being a lethal cpncentration. I am ready to admit that my interpretation of the data summarised in Table 20 is in error, and, therefore, I would be very grateful if you could clear this matter up for me. Yours very truly, Original by steamer.